40 



A. F. E. Hoernle — A Collection of Hind!. Soots. 



[No. 2, 



" will see" becomes dalclclia or dacliohlia in Prakrit (see H. C. 3, 171).* 

 Similarly the Sanskrit future base Icralcsliya or JcarJeshya would, in Prakrit, 

 become hahklia or hachchha ; and the Sanskrit compound future base 

 alcarhsliya (of root a + hrish " draw") would become dakleJia or aaclichlia. 

 With the insertion of the visual euphonic y, the latter would become 

 ayacliclilia. The Prakrit 3rd singular future accordingly might be 

 ayaclicliliai or (with the not unusual nasalization instead of the redupli- 

 cation of a consonant) dyanchlia'i ; and, assuming Childers' theory to be 

 true, this form might occur as a present, equivalent to the Sanskrit 

 karsliati. Now what I have thus constructed theoretically, is an actual 

 fact, as testified by Hema Chandra in his Grammar (4, 187). He gives 

 the following forms dyarichha'i, ayanchhdi, aincJihaif as Prakrit equi- 

 valents of the Skr. karshnti. The last form dlnchhdi (WITW^) has arisen 

 by contracting ya into i, and is that form which has immediately passed 

 into Hindi, with this difference only, that chJi has been disaspirated (a 

 process not uncommon in the modern vernaculars). Hindi has ainclmi or 

 encluii (^'^^ or ^■%) . Now to return to kliech and its compeers ; the uncom- 

 pounded root krisli would yield a Prakrit form kaclicliliai or kanclihdi, 

 which in Hindi, by transferring the lost aspiration of chh to k and by 

 assimilation to aincliai and encluii, would result in the modern forms 

 khainchai or JchencJiai or ), or without nasalization, khaichai and 



kTiecliai. It will be observed that the later forms klienchai or khainchai are 

 related to what would be the earlier forms khanchal or kanchhdi, just as 

 the modern dekhai and Prakrit dekhlia'i are to the Pali dakkhati. 



There are two other roots which also deserve a special word. One is 

 the root hokh " be" or " become." It is an equivalent of the commoner root 

 Jio by the side of which it is very commonly used in Eastern Hindi. In 

 Western Hindi, I believe, it is unknown. It is regularly conjugated, through 

 all tenses. Its origin is obscure. I am inclined to look upon it as formed 

 by the same (practically pleonastic) suffix s7c which also occurs in such roots 

 as achchh " be", gachchh " go", yachchh " hold", the element sk would 

 change in Prakrit either to kkh or to chchh ; so that hhusk (or Wiavask) 

 would become Pr. hokkh, H. hokh, just as ask (of as) becomes Pr. achchh, 

 H. aGh.h,oi' gask (of gam) becomes Pr. gachchli. Possibly — though I do not 

 think it, probable — the origin of dekh might be accounted for in a similar 

 way. 



* See also footnote on page 4-9. Tlie Prakrit word sarichchha "similar" exhibits 

 the root-form clichcha, which is to deklch (or diJcJch), as peclichh is to pelckh. On the 

 other hand its Sanskrit equivalent sadrilcsha exhibits the Prakrit root dckh or dichh in 

 its Sanskrit dress driksh, and is, I believe, the only instance of the admission of 

 that mongrel Prakrit root into Sanskrit. 



t The MS. readings vary. H. C. also gives the forms cM^nc/^e/i/;;?/ and uachhdi ; 

 in the former the nasal has been transferred to fill up the hiatus, in the latter ai is 

 contracted into a. 



